WATERHOUSES SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS STAFFORDSHIRE

GREAT CRESTED NEWT MITIGATION STRATEGY

A Report to Severn Trent Water Ltd

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Triumph House Birmingham Road Allesley Coventry CV5 9AZ

Tel: 01676 525880 Fax: 01676 521400

E-Mail: admin@middlemarch-environmental.com Web Site: www.middlemarch-environmental.com

Report Number: RT-MME-112246

July 2012 This study was conducted and compiled by Colin Bundy BSc (Hons) MIEEM

This report is the responsibility of Middlemarch Environmental Ltd,

It should be noted, that whilst every effort is made to meet the client’s brief, no site investigation can ensure complete assessment or prediction of the natural environment

Contract Number C112246

July 2012 CONTENTS

A PROJECT DETAILS ...................................................................................................... 4 A1 Project Name ............................................................................................................. 4 A2 Developer .................................................................................................................. 4

B INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5 B1 Background to Development ..................................................................................... 5

C SURVEY AND SITE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 7 C1 Pre Existing Survey Information ................................................................................ 7 C2 Status of Great Crested Newts in the Local Area ...................................................... 7 C3 Recent Survey ........................................................................................................... 7 C4 Amphibian Survey .................................................................................................... 10 C5 Interpretation and Evaluation ................................................................................... 12

D IMPACT ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 14 D1 Pre and Mid Development Impacts ......................................................................... 14 D2 Long Term Impacts .................................................................................................. 14 D3 Post Development Interference Impacts ................................................................. 14 D4 Other Impacts .......................................................................................................... 14 D6 Impact Assessment – General Comments and Wider Context ............................... 15

E MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION ......................................................................... 16 E1 Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................................... 16 E2 Receptor Site Selection ........................................................................................... 16 E3 Habitat Creation, Restoration and/or Enhancement ................................................ 16 E4 Capture, Exclusion and Translocation ..................................................................... 18 E5 Post Development Site Safeguard .......................................................................... 18 E6 Work Schedule ........................................................................................................ 19

F SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 20

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 21

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX 1 ....................................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX 2 ....................................................................................................................... 25 APPENDIX 3 ....................................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX 4 ....................................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX 5 ....................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX 6 ....................................................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX 7 ....................................................................................................................... 37 A PROJECT DETAILS

A1 Project Name Waterhouses Sewage Treatment Works (STW), Staffordshire

A2 Developer MWH Global in association with Severn Trent Water Ltd. Severn Trent Centre 2 St John’s Street Coventry CV1 2LZ B INTRODUCTION

B1 Background to Development

B1.1 Project Name Waterhouses Sewage Treatment Works, Staffordshire.

B1.2 Location – Local Authority Area Peak District National Park Authority

B1.3 Location Off Leek Road Waterhouses Stoke-on-Trent Staffordshire ST10 3JU

Centred at Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference – SK 0945 5025

B1.4 Land Ownership Severn Trent Water Ltd. (STWL)

B1.5 Current Land Use Sewage treatment works.

B1.6 Development Type Provide a new infrastructure of existing sewage treatment works and improving existing structures such as Waste Water Treatment Works.

B1.7 Planning Status Permitted development. Natural England great crested newt Triturus cristatus development licence pending.

B1.8 Relationship with Impacts Due to Other Nearby Development The current development is not part of a larger project that is likely to have in the future, or has had in the last 5 years, additional impacts on great crested newts in the local area. It is understood that there are no other future developments within the local area that would impact on GCN. B2.1 Activities Related to Great Crested Newt (GCN) Mitigation A Natural England Development Licence will be required to capture, disturb and move great crested newts from the development site. The maximum number of individuals likely to be affected is anticipated to be ten.

B2.2 Brief Description of Construction Activities The existing bio-filter capacity will be increased, through the construction of new filters and increasing humus tank capacity. This will involve the replacement of existing tanks and balancing storm flows. In addition, a new soak-away will also be constructed. The existing site access will be closed and three new access points will be constructed. For safety of public using the Manifold Way access track, 5 small pull-ins will also be created. C SURVEY AND SITE ASSESSMENT

C1 Pre Existing Survey Information

C1.1 Pre Existing Survey Data A survey completed in May 2012 confirmed the presence of a small size class population. Details are recorded in Middlemarch Environmental Report RT-MME-111773. No pre-existing data prior to this survey confirms great crested newt presence.

C2 Status of Great Crested Newts in the Local Area

C2.1 Local Status (within approx 10km) Occasional, known or likely to occur in one to five ponds per square kilometre.

C3 Recent Survey

C3.1 Objective of Survey In order to inform this mitigation strategy, a recent survey was undertaken in 2012 to assess the population class size of great crested newts in specified ponds.

C3.2 Survey Area and Justification Assessment of Ordnance Survey mapping data identified seven potential ponds within 500m of the works site. The survey area is limited to the south by the A523 and to the east by the River Hamps; these features are considered to be dispersal barriers, and therefore excluded Ponds 5, 6 and 7. In addition, the field survey subsequently identified Pond 6 to be a defunct dry concrete dew pond and Pond 7 to be a defunct silted up concrete dew pond. The field survey also identified Ponds 3 and 4 to be defunct, concrete dew ponds and Pond 2 to be absent. Therefore, only one extant pond (Pond 1) with habitat connectivity to the works was present, which was subject to great crested newt survey works (GCN).

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd Drawing Number C112246-C3.2 in Appendix 1 shows the location of the development site and extant pond with habitat connectivity to the development site.

C3.3 Habitat Description: Waterbodies Pond 1 was a small, concrete dew pond within a small enclosure. Pond 2 was absent and therefore not surveyed. Ponds 3 and 4 were small, defunct, dry concrete dew ponds and therefore not surveyed. The survey area was restricted to north of the A523 and River Hamps although field survey subsequently identified Pond 6 to be a defunct dry concrete dew pond and Pond 7 to be a defunct silted up concrete dew pond. C3.4 Habitat Description: Terrestrial Habitats The site is dominated by amenity grassland and hardstanding. Small areas of semi-mature woodland are present at the north and south of the site and a hawthorn dominated hedge runs along the western and northern boundaries. Adjacent to the east is a narrow belt of mature woodland on the steep bank of the River Hamps. To the east of the site the river is seasonally dry. The Manifold Way runs along the west boundary beyond which the valley side fields contain species rich, calcareous grassland. Semi-improved grassland is present to the south. The STW occupies a small area (0.1 ha) consisting of small operational structures within amenity grass and gravel hardstanding. The STW is bounded to the south and west by a fence and young and semi mature trees and scrub. A strip of broadleaved woodland forms the north and east boundaries with a small stream along the north boundary. To the south and west, the proposed STW extension (0.57 Ha) is within a semi-improved grass field with low species diversity.

C3.5 Waterbodies: Habitat Quantitative Assessment Ponds were assessed for their habitat suitability for great crested newts, utilising the modified Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index (Oldham et al, 2000). The habitat suitability index provides a means of evaluating habitat quality. The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) is a numerical index between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates suitable habitat and 1 represents optimal habitat. The HSI score is then utilised to define the suitability of the pond on a categorical scale (Table C3.1). The system is not precise enough to allow the conclusion that a pond with a high score will support great crested newts whilst those with a low score will not. Results of the assessment and distances of the ponds from the development are shown in Table C3.2.

| HSI Score | Pond Suitability | |-----------|------------------| | < 0.5 | Poor | | 0.5 – 0.59| Below average | | 0.6 – 0.69| Average | | 0.7 – 0.79| Good | | > 0.8 | Excellent |

Table C3.1: HSI scoring for pond suitability | Factor | Pond 1 | |-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Geographic Location | Optimal geographic location for GCN (HI 1.0) | | Pond Area (rounded to the nearest 50 m²) | 50 m² (HI 0.05) | | Pond Permanence | Dries sometimes (HI 0.5) | | Water Quality | Moderate (HI 0.67) | | Pond Shading | 30% (HI 1.0) | | No. Water Fowl | Absent (HI 1.0) | | Occurrence of Fish | Absent (HI 1.0) | | Pond Density | 5 (HI 0.75) | | Quality of terrestrial habitat| Good (HI 1.0) | | Macrophyte Cover | 70% (HI 1.0) | | Habitat Suitability Score | 0.65 (Average) | | Distance of Pond from Development | 145 m |

Table C3.2: HSI Assessment Result C4 Amphibian Survey

C4.1 Terrestrial Amphibian Survey No terrestrial amphibian surveys were undertaken.

C4.2 Aquatic Amphibian Survey

C4.2.1 Great Crested Newt Presence / Absence Survey Surveys for the presence of GCN require a minimum of 4 visits per year, with at least 2 visits between 15th April and 15th May to record peak numbers of GCN (English Nature, 2001).

Several survey methodologies are to be utilised during these visits. The standard survey methodologies include:

- Bottle trapping;
- Torchlight survey;
- Egg search; and,
- Refugia search.

Bottle traps were laid during the evening using the method described by Gent and Gibson (1998). The traps were then checked for newts before 10 am the following morning. Any newts found were recorded and then released back into the pond.

The egg search involves a direct assessment of emergent and submerged vegetation for GCN eggs. Egg surveys can only be undertaken during late spring and early summer (April to June).

The torchlight survey is a standard amphibian recording technique employing a high power torch to illuminate the ponds and allow the surveyor to record any GCN seen. This technique is undertaken during the spring, when males will be displaying and courting females.

Refuge searching involves looking underneath objects such as rocks, logs, moss and discarded debris in the vicinity of a pond. Adult and juvenile GCN can often be found underneath such objects, between March and October, especially if the objects are flat and retain moisture. Refuge searching is not a reliable method on its own and is only used as a supporting method to the other methods described.

C4.2.2 Population Size Class Assessment To carry out a population assessment, English Nature guidelines require 6 survey visits in suitable weather conditions including bottle trapping and torchlight surveys at each survey visit (English Nature, 2001). Surveys may be undertaken between mid-March and mid-June with at least 3 survey visits between mid-April and mid-May.

It is extremely difficult to determine the actual size of a great crested newt population due to the variation in sampling efficiency even with the best methods employed and the complex metapopulation dynamics involved. Therefore, English Nature (2001) has developed a Population Size Class system for the purposes of development license applications.

The peak population count for a single night is used to inform the process, where ponds are within 250 m of each other the peak is summed across these ponds for the same night and a size class assigned using the following:

- **Small** – where peak count is up to 10;
- **Medium** – where peak count is 11 to 100; and,
- **Large** – where peak count exceeds 100.

### C4.2.3 Survey Results

The great crested newt surveys were undertaken between 27th April 2012 and 16th May 2012 by the following staff: Colin Bundy, Principal Ecological Consultant and licensed GCN Surveyor. Table C4.1 provides a summary of the survey dates and weather conditions.

| Survey Visit Number | Date | Time | Temperature °C | Cloud % | Precipitation | Wind (Beaufort Scale) | |---------------------|------------|------|----------------|---------|------------------------|-----------------------| | 1 | 27/4/10 pm | 7 | 100 | Heavy Showers | F2 | | | 28/4/10 am | 6 | 100 | Showers | F2 | | 2 | 4/5/10 pm | 7 | 100 | Dry | F3 | | | 5/5/10 am | 7 | 100 | Showers | F1 | | 3 | 7/5/10 pm | 9 | 100 | Heavy Showers | F1 | | | 8/5/10 am | 9 | 80 | Heavy Showers | F1 | | 4 | 16/5/10 pm | 12 | 100 | Rain | F0 | | | 17/5/10 am | 10 | 100 | Dry | F1 | | 5 | 18/5/10 am | 7 | 0 | Dry | F2 | | | 19/5/10 pm | 7 | 0 | Dry | F0 | | 6 | 25/5/10 am | 8 | 100 | Showers | F3 | | | 26/5/10 pm | 8 | 100 | Dry | F2 |

**Table C4.1: Weather Conditions During Great Crested Newt Surveys**

During the great crested newt surveys the presence of great crested newts was confirmed within Pond 1. A total of six surveys were therefore undertaken on these this ponds to provide sufficient information for a Population Size Class Assessment.

Table C4.2 lists the results obtained from the great crested newt surveys. Table C4.2: Great Crested Newt Survey Results – Ponds 1 to 5

C5 Interpretation and Evaluation

The population size class assessment is determined by taking the maximum count for the water feature during a single survey visit by a single technique (English Nature, 2001). Pond 1 was found to contain great crested newts. No other suitable ponds were located within 250 m of this water body to create a potential great crested newt meta-population. The population size class assessment is taken as the maximum count for the pond. The results from the assessment are presented in Table C5.1. Photographs of the pond are provided in Appendix 2.

| Pond | Maximum GCN Count (using a single survey technique) | Population Size | |--------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Pond 1 | 2 | Small |

Table C5.1: Great Crested Newt Population Size Class Assessment for Surveyed Waterbodies

Site Status Assessment

Natural England has developed a methodology for determining a site status assessment using English Nature guidelines (Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature 2001). Assessment results are provided in Table C5.2.

| Factor | Assessment | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Quantitative | Minor importance - small population | | Qualitative | Minor - no breeding on site; habitats common in area | | Functional | Minor importance - population completely isolated | | Contextual | Moderate importance – population size class typical for area. |

Table C5.2: Site Status Assessment

The survey suggests the presence of a small, possibly isolated population, potentially under threat from lack of suitable breeding ponds. Pond 1 was considered to be declining in value due to dense vegetation and leaf litter. D IMPACT ASSESSMENT

D1 Pre and Mid Development Impacts Before main construction works, the areas of semi-mature woodland in the north and south of the site will be removed, as will sections of hedgerow, to allow construction of structures and new access into works. Areas will be topsoil stripped which will be stockpiled within the development area. Two concrete drying beds will be knocked down to create car parking and temporary compound areas constructed. These works may kill or injure newts or create temporary habitats such as spoil piles which newts may attempt to use if still on site. In addition, outside of the works site, five passing places will be created on the Manifold Trail verge used for access to the works resulting in the small loss of grassland and tall ruderal vegetation. Post development works the passing places will be restored and reseeded. It is not considered that works would significantly impact on migration routes.

D2 Long Term Impacts Construction of the new balancing tank in the south (intermediate) and soak-away in the north (distant) will destroy 0.03 ha and 0.06 ha respectively of broad-leaved woodland considered suitable terrestrial habitat. 119 m of hedge would be removed for construction, although 81 m of this will be replanted. This loss is not considered significant from a dispersal point of view. Remaining habitat loss mainly includes low value amenity grass, tall ruderal vegetation and hardstanding, which will be partially restored.

D3 Post Development Interference Impacts The development would not result in any increased vehicular use of the site which would remain as occasional access for operational reasons only. There would be no resulting interference impacts to Pond 1.

D4 Other Impacts No other impacts are anticipated. D5 Quantitative Analysis

D5.1 Quantitative Impact Assessment

Table D5.1 shows the effects of the development of the works on Pond 1. Effects of development are shown without any mitigation or compensation planned.

| Pond | GCN Peak Count | Effect on pond | Effect on immediate terrestrial habitat (\<50 m from pond) | Effect on intermediate terrestrial habitat (50-250 m from pond) | Effect on distant terrestrial habitat (>250 m from pond) | Fragmentation effect | Interference and other effects | |-------|----------------|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------------| | Pond 1| 2 | No effect | No effect | Minor negative effect | Minor negative effect | No effect | No effect |

Table D5.1: Effects of Development on Ponds

D5.2 Quantitative Summary of Long Term Impacts

Table D5.2 shows the quantitative summary of long-term effects for Pond 1.

| Impact | Number or area (ha) to be lost | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Number of ponds to be lost | 0 | | Number of ponds to be damaged | 0 | | Total area of ponds to be lost (ha) | 0 | | Area of immediate terrestrial habitat (\<50 m from pond) to be lost | 0 | | Area of immediate terrestrial habitat (\<50 m from pond) to be damaged | 0 | | Area of intermediate terrestrial habitat (50-250 m from pond) to be lost| 0.024 | | Area of intermediate terrestrial habitat (50-250 m from pond) to be damaged | 0.13 | | Area of distant terrestrial habitat (250-500 m from pond) to be lost | 0.03 | | Area of distant terrestrial habitat (250-500 m from pond) to be damaged| 0.18 |

Table D5.2: Quantitative Summary of Long-Term Effects

D6 Impact Assessment – General Comments and Wider Context

There would be a risk that works may kill or injure newts or create temporary habitats such as spoil piles which newts may attempt to use if still on site. Main habitat losses of note are the loss of broad-leaved woodland and hedgerow, and in addition, newts may use existing structures for refuge. Otherwise remaining impacts on habitat are mainly temporary and short term, resulting only in the long term loss of a small area of habitat considered of low value. Existing dispersal routes for newts will be maintained long term. E MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION

E1 Mitigation Strategy The main impacts on GCN will be the destruction and mainly temporary loss of non-core terrestrial habitat. Trapping and translocation followed by a supervised destructive search (where appropriate) will be undertaken to clear the site of newts before development work commences and prevent access for newts to the site during works. The receptor site is adjacent to the development site, within areas currently utilised by the great crested newt population, and newts will be moved to suitable terrestrial habitat. The site will be restored to include grass seeding and hedge planting.

E2 Receptor Site Selection

E2.1 Existing Great Crested Newt Status at Receptor Site On site receptor area - great crested newts present: small population

E2.2 Survey Information for Receptor Site The receptor site is in situ, adjacent to the development area. Survey for GCN was undertaken in 2012 and results are detailed in Section C4.2 which confirms the presence of a small population. Captured newts will be moved to the site boundary.

E2.3 Receptor Site Location On site, adjacent to works area.

E2.4 Receptor Site Ownership and Land Status Owned by Severn Trent Water Ltd and is part of the sewage treatment works site

E2.5 Receptor Site Habitat Description A three metre wide strip of the sewage works site along the southern boundary will be set aside from the exclusion fenced area. This area contains grassland and is adjacent to the river valley to the east with scattered trees, scrub and ruderal vegetation on the west bank. It also has connectivity with semi-improved grassland to the southwest. Within the receptor area the grass will be allowed to grow and refuges created with brash, logs and carpet tiles from which newts can disperse.

E3 Habitat Creation, Restoration and/or Enhancement Table E3.1 shows a quantitative summary of habitat creation, restoration and enhancement measures. The table summarises those impacts specified in Section D with proposed compensation detailed in the right hand column. Habitat creation, restoration and enhancement measures are shown on Drawing C112246-E3.1 in Appendix 5.

### Table E3.1 Quantitative Summary of Habitat Compensation

| Habitat | Impact Effect | No. or area (ha) lost | Compensation | No. or area gained | |----------------------------------|---------------|-----------------------|--------------|--------------------| | Breeding Ponds | No. ponds lost | 0 | No. ponds to be created | 0 | | | No. ponds damaged | 0 | No. ponds to be restored or enhanced | 0 | | | Area ponds lost | 0 | Total area ponds to be created | 0 | | Core Terrestrial Habitat | Core terrestrial habitat lost or damaged | 0 | Area of habitat within 50 m of breeding pond to be created or enhanced | 0 | | Intermediate terrestrial habitat | Intermediate terrestrial habitat lost or damaged | 0.154 | Area of habitat 50-250 m of breeding pond to be created or enhanced | 0.013 | | Distant terrestrial Habitat | Distant terrestrial habitat lost or damaged | 0.21 | Area of habitat > 250 m of breeding pond to be created or enhanced | 0.18 |

### E3.1 Aquatic Habitat

No new aquatic habitat would be created.

### E3.2 Terrestrial Habitat Measures

Given the small area of the works and the tight constraints of space for new infrastructure, opportunities for habitat creation are very limited. The works however, located in an area of extensive and high quality terrestrial habitat.

| Feature | Number/area/length | |----------------------------------|--------------------| | Grassland Managed for Biodiversity | 0 | | Hedgerow Planting | 81 m | | Grassland re-seeding | 0.193 ha | | Refuge creation | 0 | | Other – reed bed | 0 |

### E3.3 Integration with Roads and other Hard Surfaces

Access onto the site is from the Manifold Way (a surfaced walking and cycle route). Access to the works will be revised to allow vehicle access to all operation structures where required however, there would be no increase in the use of the site by vehicles which is only occasional by a single vehicle during daylight hours and as such is not significant. The access will be created without kerbs and gully pots. Overall, the increased impact of vehicle access and surfaces is considered to be negligible and not significant.

**E3.4 Integration with Other Species and Habitat Requirements**

No other protected or notable species have been recorded and there are no other known species issues that would conflict with GCN mitigation.

**E4 Capture, Exclusion and Translocation**

Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the sewage treatment works with the exception of a strip along the eastern boundary which will be used as a receptor area to release newts. The site will be further divided up by the use of temporary internal, drift fencing.

Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the sewage treatment works except along the west boundary where the hedge prevents this. Along this boundary the exclusion fence will be erected along the inside edge of the hedge. Small scale vegetation clearance by hand will be necessary within the woodland areas to allow access for fence construction. This route will be subject to detailed hand search prior to vegetation removal. The site will be further divided up by the use of temporary internal, drift fencing where hardstanding/structures allow. Pitfall traps and refugia will be located at 10 m intervals (min trap density 50/ha) along the inside of the perimeter fence and both sides of the drift fencing. Minimum capture effort will be 30 days as recommended by English Nature for a small population (EN 2001). This will be subject to suitable weather conditions with 5 clear days at the end of the trapping period where no newts are caught. Newts will be relocated in black plastic buckets to the receptor area. A hand and destructive search will be undertaken where appropriate, such as where sections of hedge are to be removed which are outside the exclusion fence or within the woodland areas. Proposed passing places on the Manifold Trail will be strimmed to 100 mm no more than 48 hours before and then subject to a hand search before works.

Drawing C112246-F1 in Appendix 7 shows the final development layout and mitigation measures.

**E5 Post Development Site Safeguard**

**E5.1 Habitat Management and Maintenance**

No specific habitat management or maintenance is required.

**E5.2 Post Development Population Monitoring**

Given the low impact of the development, no monitoring is required (EN 2001). E5.3 Mechanism for Ensuring Site Safeguard and Post Development Works

Low, mainly temporary impacts within the sewage treatment works which will not impact on Pond 1. The entire site is located within the Hamps and Manifold Valleys SSSI. In addition, the Peak District Dales Special Area of Conservation (SAC) lies at its closest point approximately 800 m to the north of the works. It is considered that the site is adequately safeguarded.

E6 Work Schedule

Timings for works are subject to the receipt of planning permission and a Natural England development licence. Anticipated timings are shown in Tables E6.1 and E6.2 for major categories of work detailed in Section E.

| Pre and mid development | Timing | Comments | |-------------------------|--------|----------| | Receptor site terrestrial habitat works - features e.g. hibernacula, refuges | August 2012 | Creation of temporary log and brash refuges for newt dispersal | | Newt fence installation | August/September 2012 | Subject to Natural England Development Licence. | | Newt capture (pitfall trapping etc) | September/October 2012 | Minimum of 30 days trapping in suitable weather conditions, with 5 clear days at the end of the trapping period where no newts are caught. | | Destructive or hand searches | August / September / October 2012 | Prior to fence in woodland & passing | | Development site preparation | Sep/Oct - 12 to March/April - 13 | Subject to completion of trapping | | Site checks & maintenance during construction | Daily | By contractor throughout works on site | | Newt fence removal | April 2013 | | | Habitat reinstatement | March/April 13 | Hedge planting and grass reseeding | | Post construction mitigation/compensation on development site or other | March/April 13 | Hedge planting and grass reseeding |

Table E6.1: Timings of Pre and Mid Development Activities SUMMARY

The development will see the upgrade of treatment processes at the Waterhouses STW, to meet new discharge consents from the Environment Agency. The impacts on newts will be the potential to kill or injure newts or create temporary habitats such as spoil piles which newts may attempt to use if still on site. In addition, there would be a temporary and permanent loss of mainly intermediate and distant terrestrial habitat. There will be no impacts on Pond 1. Exclusion of great crested newts from the development area during construction will protect individuals from death or injury. Overall the loss of habitat is considered negligible and non-core to the population. The site will be restored after works. It is considered that the mitigation strategy will ensure the favourable conservation status of this species. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 1979 (Berne Convention).

Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000.

English Nature (2001) *Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines*. English Nature, Peterborough.

European Community Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Fauna and Flora.

Gent A and Gibson S (1998), *Herpetofauna Workers Manual*, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Langton, T, Beckett, C. and Foster J. (2001) *Great Crested Newt: Conservation Handbook*. Froglife, Suffolk.

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-01 Fig C3.2 Map to show development site location, survey area and ponds surveyed.

Appendix 2: C9.4 Photographs to show GCN ponds and habitats on development site.

Appendix 3: Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig D Map to show impacts.

Appendix 4: Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig E2 Map to show location of receptor site in relation to development site.

Appendix 5: Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig E3.1 Map to show habitat creation, restoration and enhancement.

Appendix 6: Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig E4. Map to show capture and exclusion measures

Appendix 7: Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig F1 Map to show final layout of development and mitigation measures. APPENDIX 1

Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig C3.2a Map to show development site location and survey area. Legend

- 500 m radius from development boundary
- Site boundary
- Pond surveyed - GCN present
- Pond absent/dry
- Pond not surveyed due to presence of dispersal barrier

Existing habitat:

- Amenity grassland
- Broad-leaved woodland
- Hardstanding & structures
- Tall ruderal

Client Project Drawing Revision Drawing Number Date Approved By Drawn By Scale at A4 Notes

June 2012 SKS

Waterhouses C112246-C3.2a

MWH Treatment Development & Survey Area, Pond surveyed

CB

© Crown copyright and database right 2012. APPENDIX 2

Photographs of GCN Ponds and Development Area Plate A2.1: Showing part of works Looking South

Plate A2.2: South of works showing redundant tanks to be removed Plate A2.3: North end of works, looking north

Plate A2.4: Area of Woodland North Plate A2.5: View of Manifold Trail adjacent to works, looking north

Plate A2.6: Pond 1 APPENDIX 3

Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig D Map to show impacts.

### Existing habitat:

- **Amenity grassland**
- **Broad-leaved woodland**
- **Hardstanding & structures**
- **Semi-improved grassland**
- **Tall ruderal**

### Legend

- Permanent habitat loss
- Temporary habitat loss
- Permanent loss of hedgerow
- Temporary loss of hedgerow
- 50 m radius from GCN pond
- 250 m radius from GCN pond
- 500 m radius from GCN pond
- Passing places
- Site boundary

### Table: Impacts of Development

| Habitat Type | Area Lost (ha) | Area Lost (m²) | Length Lost (m) | |--------------|---------------|----------------|-----------------| | **50-250 m from GCN pond** | | | | | Permanent loss | | | | | Amenity grassland | 0.020 | 199 | | | Broad-leaved woodland | 0.004 | 45 | | | Hedgerow | | | | | Temporary loss | | | | | Amenity grassland | 0.004 | 940 | | | Broad-leaved woodland | 0.002 | 233 | | | Tall ruderal | 0.011 | 114 | | | Semi-improved grassland | 0.006 | 82 | | | Hedgerow | | | | | **250-500 m from GCN pond** | | | | | Permanent loss | | | | | Amenity grassland | 0.010 | 102 | | | Broad-leaved woodland | 0.021 | 213 | | | Hedgerow | | | | | Temporary loss | | | | | Amenity grassland | 0.124 | 1235 | | | Broad-leaved woodland | 0.027 | 373 | | | Semi-improved grassland | 0.003 | 26 | | | Tall ruderal | 0.019 | 191 | | | Hedgerow | | | |

### Waterhouses

- **C112246-D**
- **June 2012**
- **SKS**
- **CB**

### MWH Treatment

- **C112246-D**

### Contact Information

- Triumph House, Birmingham Road, Walsall, West Midlands, WS2 8AZ
- T: 01922 652588, F: 01922 652140
- E: admin@middlemarch-environmental.com

© 2012, Middlemarch Environmental. All rights reserved. APPENDIX 4

Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig E2

Map to show location of receptor site in relation to development site. APPENDIX 5

Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig E3.1 Map to show habitat creation, restoration and enhancement. Legend

- Species-rich native hedge planting
- Areas re-seeded as amenity grassland
- Areas re-seeded with wildflower grassland
- Development boundary
- Site boundary

Waterhouses

- C112246-E3.1
- June 2012
- SKS
- CB

MIDDLEMARCH ENVIRONMENTAL

Triumph House, Birmingham Road, Walsall, Coventry CV5 9AZ T: 01676 525880 F: 01676 521400 E: admin@middlemarch-environmental.com

© Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community APPENDIX 6

Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig E4a Map to show capture and exclusion measures. Legend

- Destructive search
- GCN exclusion fencing - perimeter pitfall traps & refugia on the inside
- GCN exclusion fencing - drift pitfall traps & refugia on either side APPENDIX 7

Middlemarch Environmental Drawing C112246-Fig F1

Map to show final layout of development and mitigation measures. MIDDLEMARCH ENVIRONMENTAL LTD.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

WATERHOUSES SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS, STAFFORDSHIRE

GREAT CRESTED NEWT MITIGATION STRATEGY

A Report to Severn Trent Water Ltd

Contract Number: C112246 Report Number: RT-MME-112246 Revision Number: 00 Description: Final Date: July 2012 Checked by:

David Smith Ecology and Landscapes Director

Approved by:

Dr Philip Fermor Managing Director